RogerBlack
Senior Member
- Messages
- 902
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(17)30458-9/fulltext
In part.
Contrast with:
The argument of course is that criticisms of CBT/GET are misguided, and that we should be properly respectful of the scientific method that lead to them, following the defences by White, Wessley et al in their FAQ, for example.(failing to note the obvious fact that that FAQ fails to address most of the criticism)
Neglecting that the argument is not against the conclusion, but about the terrible methodology, and the fact the effect sizes for CBT or GET are utterly trivial compared with the headlines in the abstracts.Or comparing them with the fatigue score changes when double-blind rituximab is given (after a delay in onset of several months).
The comment in the middle
A retraction is in no way 'expunging the record' in a manner which makes the work unavailable.
It is possible to submit comments to editorials, but not online.
In part.
Other recent work targeted by calls for retraction include studies of cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome. In these cases the criticisms have centred on the methods, but the fact that similar criticisms have been repeated on subsequent studies suggests that it is the conclusions that are at issue.
Contrast with:
When somebody picks holes in your preconceptions, or undermines your pithy sound bite, it is not constructive to send them away with a flea in their ear; instead, they deserve gratitude for creating the opportunity to reflect on your preconceptions and ensure that decisions are made on the basis of the best evidence. If you are correct, then rebut forcefully to your heart's content.
The argument of course is that criticisms of CBT/GET are misguided, and that we should be properly respectful of the scientific method that lead to them, following the defences by White, Wessley et al in their FAQ, for example.(failing to note the obvious fact that that FAQ fails to address most of the criticism)
Neglecting that the argument is not against the conclusion, but about the terrible methodology, and the fact the effect sizes for CBT or GET are utterly trivial compared with the headlines in the abstracts.Or comparing them with the fatigue score changes when double-blind rituximab is given (after a delay in onset of several months).
The comment in the middle
is comedic.Although it is trite to say so, it is nonetheless true that if we expunge the record of research missteps we fail to learn the lessons of the past.
A retraction is in no way 'expunging the record' in a manner which makes the work unavailable.
It is possible to submit comments to editorials, but not online.